I recently saw someone rank Wasting Light from the Foo Fighters among their top albums of 2011 and it just sort of caught me, I will say, "off-guard". Now, my surprise really has nothing to do with the album itself, it's not a bad record, and when judging it against the rest of what modern mainstream rock has to offer, it might as well be Abbey Road. I think my reaction was more about the reasoning behind its inclusion on this list. Now, I will say, I completely understand why people dig Foo Fighters; shit, who doesn't enjoy a killer live rock band who takes their cues from all the right influences and doesn't concern itself with all the things that Bono likes to concern himself with while wearing $20,000 sunglasses? Nobody.
Now, you can argue that the Foo haven't released a better album since 1997's The Colour and The Shape (and you'd be right), but the bottom line is, Dave Grohl is a fantastic songwriter who knows how to take pop hooks and legitimately make them ROCK. I have seen the FF live on more than a few occasions and have walked away every single time feeling like I may have just seen the best live rock band on the planet. But, for some reason, I haven't bought a FF album since In Your Honor. I've listened to them all, and sure, they've all had their moments; but no matter how I feel about their last few albums and how they all kind of blur together after There Is Nothing Left To Lose...the Foo Fighters have always delivered the goods live and they deserve every bit of their success on that aspect alone. A live band of their caliber is a rare and beautiful thing.
So, what really bothered me about Wasting Light being included on this particular "Top Albums of 2011" list? It's the fact that this particular "list-maker" completely swallowed the bait that was cast into the water by the FF camp. It doesn't take a detective to see that the promotional focus for this record was to make sure that every rock music fan was made fully aware that this album is a true "garage rock" album. Stickers were placed on the packaging that informed us that this album was "recorded entirely on analog tape in Dave's garage!" They even went that all-important extra mile and inserted cuts of the original master tape into the CD packaging! Now, I can only assume that this decision was made to convince any remaining skeptics with physical evidence, and to simultaneously make sure that they completely hammered home the point that this album was, FOR REAL, recorded onto analog tape. Okay, we get it, fellas. Oh, they also made a documentary about it; just so everyone could see those reels of tape spinning away.
What I don't get is, why are the Foo Fighters so adamant about making sure that we all know they did something that other bands (at all levels) still do, and do without mention? I'm guessing the answer lies somewhere along the same line of reasoning that is used by bands who record their music digitally and then release the material on vinyl. See, these days, simply giving a nod to the old school methods of recording or releasing their material on vinyl is just the hip thing for bands to do. Even if these bands aren't actually recording "the way they used to", the mere mention of it still goes a long way in the street cred department. And then, of course, their fans will undoubtedly say, "Ohhhhhhh, I can tell they recorded this to tape!" or "Wow, it sounds so much better on vinyl!" Shut the fuck up.
Alright, check this out:
I completely appreciate EVERYTHING that Grohl is saying there. I actually love it and wish every band viewed things exactly the same way. His attitude and views are spot on. But, the big problem I noticed after hearing Wasting Light is that this whole analog agenda that the Foo Fighters have been beating their public in the face with just ended up making me feel completely misled. After all of the talk and going the extra miles to make sure that we all knew this album was recorded to analog tape with supreme rock n' roll gusto...the truth is, the sound of this album simply doesn't reflect those sentiments. While listening to the album play out, no matter how much of the hip, punk rock attitude he wants to posture, you can't help but feel that Grohl has completely missed the point and meaning of his own words. The main, glaring contradiction of all of the talk is that this album sounds extremely polished and produced; and to me, that is the complete opposite of what a "garage rock album" should sound like and be about. Basically, aside from a few cool moments, this album is very UN-rock n' roll if you're judging it against the attitude and punk rock sensibilities that Grohl is portraying above.
Now, I know this album wasn't exactly recorded on a garage bands budget...and I'm pretty positive that this particular garage was converted into the kind of studio that would more than likely be considered a studio of higher quality than 99% of all other recording studios in the world. But, in the end, other than the hip, old school talk that was used to rev up the common music fan...it was completely pointless for the Foo Fighters to record this album differently than any of the other albums that they have released over the past decade. Well, at the very least, it was completely pointless to go to such lengths to make sure that their fans were absolutely aware of this "change" in their recording method. The perfect intent was there, but somewhere along the line, the actual meaning of that intent was simply lost in the process. I just don't think a band should ever pledge that they're going to make a "true garage rock record" when they have access to an A-list artists' studio budget and are also going to be concerned with meeting today's over-compressed radio play sound standards. Honestly, the entire concept is a complete contradiction of itself...or they've never heard The Sonics.
When I read that quote (above) from Grohl, I instantly think of an album like Bleach; Nirvana's first album. Grohl hadn't yet joined Nirvana, but that album contains exactly the kind of rock he is talking about. It's offensive, raw, live, perfectly imperfect, unapologetic, and leaves a lasting mark on the listener. So, why would Grohl get Butch Vig to record Wasting Light? I mean, Vig recorded Nevermind...and considering the band, that album ranks high as one of the most polished sounding albums of all-time. And in my opinion, it's because of that polish that the album itself is a pretty substantial misrepresentation of Nirvana's actual sound; or maybe it's more appropriate to say that it's actually a bigger misrepresentation of their attitude and style. I always found it interesting that the one album of new material Nirvana recorded after Nevermind didn't have a hint of that polish to it. In Utero was loud, live, raw, and in the moment...and because of this, it is a more honest representation of what Nirvana was about.
So, after all of the hype about going for that "real, analog, live, in-the-moment" sound; the fact of the matter is, that "sound" just isn't what Wasting Light is giving off. To me, this album was simply more of the same, mostly forgettable, commercially successful, pop/anthem rock that we have heard over the last decade from what is ultimately, a great band. I guess I was just expecting so much more from this "process". I really thought this approach was going to bring on a much needed change of pace and sound for a band that has been resting on its laurels for far too long. Now, if they had called Steve Albini instead of Butch Vig and went after the same concept, with the same attitude...I think the difference in the recording approach alone would have resulted in a much more memorable listen; and then, if I had seen Wasting Light end up on a "Top Albums of 2011" list, I would have completely understood and, more than likely, applauded it.